Brainwashing 101 and the Education STASI
J.A. Eddy
Two institutes of Higher Education have been floating around the periphery of the news lately. Fortunately there are several bloggers paying closer attention.
The latest issue has been the University of Delaware’s Student Housing re-education program where the Resident Assistants were trained in having one-on-one meetings with students living in the dorms to discuss living situations and essentially train them in diversity. It sounds like just more PC fuzzy-bunnyness until you look into the details, after which you have to wonder just who it was who thought this was a good idea, and did they once consult the University’s legal department before putting it in place?
UPDATE: If you are only going to read one of the above links, please read THIS ONE.
Welcome to the new Gulag, same as the old Gulag.
Then there is the story of William and Mary College, where College President Gene Nichol began by removing the cross from the Wren chapel on campus in order to make the 274-year-old chapel more welcoming to students of other faiths. Next came the anonymous student denunciation system whereby students were encouraged to report other students engaging in inappropriate speech or activities. Since the spotlight was shone on this program the language at the reporting site has been modified to render it somewhat less Orwellian in appearance, but can any good really come of such a system on a college campus?
I like to believe that the portrayals of rampant PC intolerance in education are at least a little overblown, but sometimes it's hard...
Links via Instapundit and Powerline
but the first part about dorm RAs is off the mark. the fact is that an RA, more than any other student on campus, has to be a fair and open-minded advocate for his or her students. If someone goes into an RA-ship with racist, sexist, homophobic, or religionist attitudes, that will affect their performance regarding those students who don't fall in line with their hierarchical worldview. Diversity training may have become a parody of itself in most instances, or a buzzword for thought control, but in this case it seems essential to the services provided.
Sophmore year, when my african-american roommate decided to force me to move out by destroying both my possessions and my schedule because she wanted a private room, my RA "advocated" for me by taking me aside and telling me what would happen to me if I complained. Not in an ugly threatening way, but in a "I've seen what happens to complainers" way. I would have been branded a racist/sexist and thrown off campus. The situation was neither "fair" nor "open-minded".
Also, there were a lot of links in this piece. You may not have had time to read all the way through to the one that talks about what happened to RA's that complained about the system. They were to be expelled from the college completely, not just out of the dorm. I'm not seeing people under that kind of pressure turning out to be "fair and open-minded advocates".
The issue is that the RA's are being trained to indoctrinate the students in the residence halls. The university is pretty much able to provide whatever training it pleases to the RA's as they are essentially employees. This goes far, far over the line in that the RA's are tasked with reeducating students.
Read this link, a summary of two one-on-one meetings written by the RA. In the second instance he refers the issue to IR (Internal Review). Why should that student be required to provide answers to the questions posed, and what about her behavior warrants further review by the university housing staff?
you are right, I seem to have misinterpreted the first link, which seemed mostly like agitprop to me. Although I still sympathize with the campus in essentially wanting everyone to be happy and have there be no problems especially those related to bigotry. However, it is absolutely right to criticize a program like this. Having a speaker come in and talk about diversity is one thing, and flagging intolerant ACTIONS for review is also okay. But the "one-on-ones" and the questionnaire are invasive and totally unnecessary.
Lucy,
so the problem is that your RA wasn't a fair an open minded advocate, or that in your experience colleges have not done a good job in ensuring fairness. not that diversity training is stupid.
None of the stuff discussed in any of the links is even remotely close to my experience attending an urban-centered school with a diverse student body. Am I justified, then, in claiming from my anecdotal experience that everything is perfect on college campuses because my experience was devoid of controversy or PC indoctrination?
So someone with no strong view on anything conservative then, right? I mean, most people that have a problem with homosexuality tend to lean right. Strong people of faith, that don't back down from it when pressed, tend to lean right. People that believe in traditionally defined gender roles tend to lean right.
So, no conservatives need apply for the RA spot. Got it.
There's being open minded and then there's being being so open minded nothing stays put in it.
You know, some "hierarchical worldviews" are actually better than others. It's not a sin to express as much.
Oh, wait, I mentioned sin. Guess I'm not getting that RA gig, huh?
anti-semitic, anti-christian, anti-catholic, anti-islam, etc., etc.
it's fine to be religious, it's not fine to not be fair to your students because they're of a different religion or because they're gay. Sorry if I wasn't clear, but my statement wasn't intended to imply anything about left/right issues. It's simply that if you can't be fair you shouldn't be in a position that requires you to engage in arbitration. Lucy already mentioned the pitfalls that occur when you don't have a fair RA.
Point taken.
Zach-
The two examples are stand-alones in my opinion; however, given the known biases in higher education am I wrong to wonder if crap like this is more wide-spread?
no, of course it's not wrong to wonder. But I think it helps to try and see both sides of the issue. Colleges want to include everyone, that's just good business sense. They have certain policies in place to try and ensure everyone has a positive experience with their product. But those policies also depend upon good sales reps (the RAs in this case, teachers in others). A breakdown in either system will cause bad service. So while I think it's a good thing in general to criticize schools (especially public colleges where the standards of fairness are more crucial) when their policies aren't the most effective or well thought out, it also must factor in to the discussion whether the breakdown stems from the individual. In Lucy's case is it the school who was at fault, or her RA as an individual, or both? Because no matter how good a policy, there will always be a bonehead there to take it too literally, too broadly, too far, not far enough, etc, etc.
See his three pieces co-located here.
True enough, this particular system certainly qualifies as 'systemic oppression'.
Hmmm. Methinks the university won't be too pleased when people start taking them up on that.
Note also that when knowledge of what was going on became wide-spread RA's were encouraged to speak glowingly of the program. Those who didn't allegedly faced losing their jobs and even expulsion. Professors at the university joked about it, saying "welcome to North Korea"- even they understood what this was about. This program was flawed to its very core.
?????
John,
as I said, in this case it seems like the critics are absolutely right.
It's the College of William &Mary, not William &Mary College (and regarding the shootings at my alma mater, it's Virginia Tech or Virginia Polytechnic Institute &State University, not Virginia Tech University)
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.